About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
checks. that's helped them win more elections in red states and people like harry reid get elected in nevada, a pretty pro-gun state. the question is, is that going to be productive for people who want to see gun control get passed? will this mean an increased prag ma tichl, mean that the issue has a better chance of getting through? >> and what's the answer to that question? do we know? >> i don't have a crystal ball, but if you talk to people who support gun control, they have been beaten down for a long time, losing consistently for 20 years will do that to you. and they feel better than they ever have. there is, as you know, a lot of momentum behind this issue. a democratic president who has the bully pulpit who is using this on his agenda and now we have even some republicans coming to the table and signaling that there may be some kind of bipartisan action that can get through congress on gun control. that would be the first time since the brady bill in 1993, if that happens. >> molly ball from "the atlantic," thank you very much. >>> first lady michelle obama will go to chic
, and the reason why it was 58 votes is because harry reid switched his vote to no soap the senate can bring it back up again. you have a lot of republican senators who were saying last week that they did not want to see it go up in filibuster. at least it would be an up-down of the to be approved. there was no precedent to filibuster a choice like this. and the republicans decided they wanted to use this vote as a way to extract more information from the white house on issues like the terrorist attack in benghazi in september, and so they are committed to passing a goal when they come back. the way you are looking at it, it is a tedious exercise in delaying the inevitable. chuck hagel will be confirmed. he will just have to wait 11 days. you should confirm him because you are going to confirm him anyway. it is just another delay in what the senate is trying to do. host: harry reid set a new vote for tuesday, in 11 days. what do republicans want to see in the meantime? guest: they say they would like answers again from the white house, more details about what the president did and did not do
reid yesterday filed a motion to limit debate and force vote on the hagel nomination. harry reid said today, though, that republicans are mounting a full-scale filibuster of the hagel nomination. he said that there's never been a filibuster of a secretary of defense in the country's history. discussion on the nomination continues. senator leahy on the senate floor now and that is live on c-span2. also coming up live on booktv.org later today at 7:00 p.m. eastern, stephen hess who wrote "whatever happened to the washington reporters: 1978-2012." he interviewed journalist who is were covered the federal government and washington and 30 years later talked to 283 of those to find out where things went on in their career and the fields they covered. that discussion with stephen hess gets under way at 7:00 and that's at booktv.org. >> we have a habit in this country, if i may say, now of glossing over presidents. we decided, some people, that they're balancedying -- bald eagles and they have to be treated as symbols of the country. what that means, though, is you have -- you have a smoothin
, but let's vote on it. to harry reid, the house, it has decided on sequestration the past year we have done nothing in the senate crime -- in the senate. we are not doing anything in the senate. so, harry, please take the president's proposal or come up with one of your own. put it on the floor and let's start voting. we have our fingerprint as republicans on this sequestration idea. thats the president's idea we come as the republican party agreed to it. we got in this mess together and we will have to get out together. mr. president, helped lead us. all like anyone else on this stage, you are the commander-in- chief. do you really want your legacy to be that you let the american congress into a deal that would destroy the military at the time it would need it the most? do you want to pivot to asia? how do you do that with 232 ships? when about iran acquiring nuclear capabilities? have you modernize the f-16 and the f-18? had you go deep into iran without the f-22 and the at-35 coming into being? our enemy would love this to happen here i'm sure iran is very supportive of sequestration. i
? >> yes. >> yes. thank you, senator. as i understand it on october 2, 2008, majority leader harry reid brought a similar bill to the floor. in fact, it was called the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability act of 2008. and he brought it to the floor in october 2, 2008. there have been media reports that you blocked unanimous consent for the consideration of that bill. are those reports true or not? >> i was one of some republican senators that did not want that vote to go forward. i voted against it in subcommittee. and the reason i did was because the bush administration did not want that bill to go forward. the reason they didn't was because they were involved in negotiations with the russians and the u.n. and security council members to put multilateral sanctions through. >> but just to be clear you did block unanimous contestant. >> i was -- con sent in >> i was part of those who did. >> would it surprise you that an earlier version of those sanctions bill was actually co- sponsored bicek taxpayer cary and clinton and obama at the time? would that surprise you? >> no. not nece
john boehner talking to the president or mitch mcconnell talking to the vice president or harry reid, there's a few people at the top trying to make these decisions thinking we should all fall. there's little reach the bottom to find out where we are coming from and it's based on seniority. that hasn't worked well. we haven't been able to fix much with that type of attitude so i know when we reach out and have 25, 30 of us and we are reaching across the aisle malae -- i will give you a perfect example. we had a problem with revenue and people said we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. we have people on the other side saying we don't spending problem, we have a revenue problem. they are both right and they are both wrong. how do we get people on the other side if a republican says i don't want any more revenue but they said it might not be that it's just i don't like the way that you spend the money and the democrats say okay. can we come to an agreement? if we vote to have revenue and also you are asking me as a democrat if we have new revenue can you spend it
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)